Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:12:29 +0600 | From | "Rakib Mullick" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4) |
| |
On 8/12/08, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote: > > > Paul Jackson wrote: > > Rakib wrote: > >> Ok, this is the second place. But, what about the first place ( I > >> mean in line 614). > > > > You present me with a clear choice. > > > > I could find your past patch, applying it to whatever it applied to, > > and look to see what was at line 614. > > > > Or I could ask you to restate your point, with enough code > > displayed so that I could understand your point just by reading > > your email. > > > > I choose the second choice. Thank-you. > > > I think Rakib is talking about this code Yes, Max you are right . I'm talking about the following code. > > > > /* Special case for the 99% of systems with one, full, sched domain */ > > if (is_sched_load_balance(&top_cpuset)) { > > > doms = kmalloc(sizeof(cpumask_t), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!doms) > > > goto done; > > > > > dattr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct sched_domain_attr), GFP_KERNEL); > > if (dattr) { > > *dattr = SD_ATTR_INIT; > > update_domain_attr_tree(dattr, &top_cpuset); > > } Don't you think , the memory allocation here needs to be checked ? > > *doms = top_cpuset.cpus_allowed; > > > > > ndoms = 1; > > goto done; > > } > > Which I think is perfectly fine and clear. > > There are only two matches for > /attr.*=.*alloc > We covered both of them. > > > Max > > > >
| |